Earlier this year a federal district court held that a directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policy’s insured-versus-insured exclusion did not preclude coverage for a claim brought by a court-appointed receiver of a policyholder against the policyholder’s former officers. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Providence Cmty. Action Program, Inc., No. 15-cv-00388 (D.R.I. Jan. 24, 2017). When the non-profit policyholder ProCap went into receivership, the Rhode Island state court appointed a receiver. That receiver then brought breach of fiduciary duty claims against two of the policyholder’s former officers. When the receiver then demanded payment from ProCap’s D&O liability insurer, the insurer denied the claims based on a policy exclusion for claims brought or maintained by, at the behest of, or on behalf of an insured organization against another insured. The court first addressed the issue of whether the receiver’s claim was brought on behalf of ProCap. Under both First Circuit and Rhode Island law, this was a question of first impression. After analyzing Rhode Island receivership law and decisions of other federal district courts within the First Circuit, the court found that the court-appointed receiver was not acting on behalf of ProCap but rather was better understood as an agent of the court working for the potential benefit of various parties. Thus, the insured-versus-insured exclusion did not apply. The court also found that an amendment to the insurance policy adding the receiver as an individual insured under the label of an independent contractor did not trigger the insured-versus-insured exclusion.